Hold'em and PLO aren't perfect ??
When it comes to poker variants or concepts that I create, every time I just try to do my best and follow my creative instinct. But when it comes to games that attract over 100 million players worldwide - I'm a very demanding player and I require 100% perfection from the game rules and the game's math.
Please take a look at these 3 graphics and tell me what's your opinion. I came up with this today. To me this looks like an error which has just been fixed. Or at least a huge improvement to the rules. That's my first impression after finding this:
G. J.
Why do you think the examples are imperfections? I would argue that the results of those hands are what makes poker great.
No Limit Hold'em:
- ABSURD #1 - Broadway board can kill the action making the hand suddenly turn from dynamic to dull.
- ABSURD #2 - When you have a king high flush (holding only a king), you know absolutely nothing about your hand except that it's a king high flush. Second nuts should be a very strong hand. While here, it's more like a lottery when opponent raises you all in for example. I mean, it's good when you have some reads on him etc., but your hand strength should be something obvious and clear. Here - it's not.
Pot Limit Omaha:
- ABSURD #1 - Useless hole cards aren't a problem most of the time, but what if you're playing a big MTT, and when the blinds get big and every hand matters, you are forced to fold. When you compare this to NLHE for example, it doesn't look good - in NLHE you can call pre-flop every hand you want in an emergency situation like when the BB is 40% of your entire stack.
- ABSURD #2 - Same thing as the previous situation with king high flush described above. The rarity of your hand should resemble / reflect it's strength. You can have like KKxx and 777xx board and you can easily lose (to AAxx or 7xxx). It's very misleading.
Imperfections are ok in some life situations (nobody is perfect after all), but in a real money game based on probability, the probability itself should be something stable and constant. Something you can rely on. Same thing with rare and weird situations described above, they don't do anything good overall.
I think my solution is very good. And it fixes all 4 problems at once.
No Limit Hold'em:
- ABSURD #1 - Broadway board can kill the action making the hand suddenly turn from dynamic to dull.
- ABSURD #2 - When you have a king high flush (holding only a king), you know absolutely nothing about your hand except that it's a king high flush. Second nuts should be a very strong hand. While here, it's more like a lottery when opponent raises you all in for example. I mean, it's good when you have some reads on him etc., but your hand strength should be something obvious and
Uncertainty is the essence of poker. If you want certainty, go play chess.
I'm talking about particular situations. I'm not talking in general.
Things like this would never be accepted in shares trading / stock exchange. But they exist in poker, where huge money is involved on a global scale as well.
I'm just trying to say that perfection guarantees safety.
Strange stories can happen when it comes to exceptions.
I have no idea what the first post is trying to say. How do two cards determine a 'hand type'?
I have no idea what the first post is trying to say. How do two cards determine a 'hand type'?
They can play, just as they usually do. But only temporarily. Let's look at this example:
You're dealt 8♠ 9♠
Flop: 3♦ T♠ (gap) 4♣
Turn: 3♠
River: A♠
Whole board: 3♦ T♠ (gap) 4♣ 3♠ A♠
Your hand is a flush of a value of 8943A (high card ace), so it's a very weak flush. For example, you can lose to your opponent's 4♠ 5♠, because his flush has a value of a pair (4453A).
Hope this helps 😀
No, I still don't get what the 3T is doing.
Incredible post
3T gives the T♠ needed to make your flush. While the value of your flush is replaced by a 5 card poker hand and that is:
- your hole cards
- 3rd flop card
- turn
- river
As you see, the 3T doesn't play anymore when determining the value of your flush.
Also, in the 3rd graphic you can read the title "Replacing card values with a poker hand". Every poker hand has its type (flush, straight, etc.) and value which is usually read from card values. Here, the values are replaced with a complete 5 card poker hand. In case of PLO, this will be best 5 of 7 cards.
3T gives the T♠ needed to make your flush. While the value of your flush is replaced by a 5 card poker hand and that is:
- your hole cards
- 3rd flop card
- turn
- river
As you see, the 3T doesn't play anymore when determining the value of your flush.
Also, in the 3rd graphic you can read the title "Replacing card values with a poker hand". Every poker hand has its type (flush, straight, etc.) and value which is usually read from card values. Here, the values are replaced with a complete 5 card poker h
It seems to me that you are trying to solve a problem that nobody thinks exists, by replacing it with a complication that you can't explain in a way that anyone understands. I certainly don't see how you have a flush if you can't use the Ts. You say that "Your hand is a flush of a value of 8943A (high card ace), so it's a very weak flush. " But what makes it a flush, given that you only have 4 spades. If a 5 card hand consisting of 4 spades and 1 club is a flush, then I think the definition of flush has changed. I simply have no idea what it means to say that the first 2 cards determine the hand type (and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either). Your explanation leaves a lot to be desired.
I simply have no idea what it means to say that the first 2 cards determine the hand type (and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either). Your explanation leaves a lot to be desired.
It's as if the player's view of the board was split into 2 different perspectives. You take the hand type from the 1st wider perspective and you add the hand value from the 2nd.
You can say that first two flop cards are then imaginary or phantoms, but as long as you can see them on the table, they are real just as other cards.
It's as if the player's view of the board was split into 2 different perspectives. You take the hand type from the 1st wider perspective and you add the hand value from the 2nd.
You can say that first two flop cards are then imaginary or phantoms, but as long as you can see them on the table, they are real just as other cards.
I know that you know exactly what you mean when you write these things, because you created the game. But what hand types are there, and what hand type is implied by T3 offsuit, and what hand type is set by something like KQ or 99 or A3? Your instructions give absolutely no information about this. How would anyone even know what type of hand they are trying to make if they don't know what hand types are available?
Classic hand rankings, same as in normal poker.
ITD Poker: A lifetime to learn, impossible to master
This project is gaining traction already I can feel it
I think what he's trying to say is that a flush always ties with any other flush, one pair always ties with any other one pair, etc. (and this hand is determined based on all 7 cards - 2 from your hand and 5 from the board). And if and only if both players have the same hand type, then the tie-breaker is not the strength of the flush/ straight/ 1-pair, but the 5-card poker hand made up of your 2 hole cards and the last 3 board cards dealt.
So now, if the board is a broadway straight, both players will tie as to #1, but there is a tie-breaker for the pot based on each player's hole cards combined with the last card of the flop + the turn and river.
OP - this sounds like a pretty dumb idea - the biggest advantage of hold-em is that you can explain it to someone in 10 minutes and they can get the gist of it - that's why amateur players continue playing, that's why people watch poker on TV and poker streams on youtube, and so on (the old "minutes to learn, a lifetime to master" principle).
Your complication of the game might be interesting to play, but it totally fails on the "intuitive to understand" metric. Also, just as a practical note, the number of hands where your rule change alters the action of the hand doesn't seem like it will be that much, and in some cases it will change it in strange ways. For instance if both players have "no-pair", AK will always beat AQ anyway - both players having a straight or better doesn't come up often enough to really matter. If both players have "1-pair", AK will beat AQ on Q23K6 but lose to AQ on K23Q6? How does that make the game better?
1)I think what he's trying to say is that a flush always ties with any other flush, one pair always ties with any other one pair, etc. (and this hand is determined based on all 7 cards - 2 from your hand and 5 from the board). And if and only if both players have the same hand type, then the tie-breaker is not the strength of the flush/ straight/ 1-pair, but the 5-card poker hand made up of your 2 hole cards and the last 3 board cards dealt.
So now, if the board is a broadway straight, both playe
1) That's exactly what I mean.
2) My rule isn't that much of a complication, but I agree that it's great for the game if the mechanics are simple as possible while the strategy is deep. But what's more important - simplicity of rules or elimination of odd situations ? It would be ideal if NLHE and PLO had both, but it's impossible.
3) My concept indeed changes NLHE only slightly when final showdown result and the action are considered, but it's a significant change for PLO.
4) In your example cards arrive on the table in different order, so this creates 2 completely different scenarios of action, unless both players go all in pre-flop. If you change the order of community cards in any regular NLHE hand, you are also very likely to get a different scenario. The main advantage of this new concept is that the value / strength of your hand precisely corresponds with the rarity probability (which is 100% correct). This is important mostly when both players have the same type of hand. Such thing as "easy surprise" doesn't exist here any longer.
i think we've finally fixed the terrible game of poker
Simplicity of rules is far more important than the elimination of odd situations. Especially when most people don't consider them odd.
It seems right and normal to me that a flush with bigger cards should beat a flush with smaller cards. No idea why you want to change that.
Simplicity of rules is far more important than the elimination of odd situations. Especially when most people don't consider them odd.
It seems right and normal to me that a flush with bigger cards should beat a flush with smaller cards. No idea why you want to change that.
Imagine a record breaking $3M pot on the turn between Ivey and Chidwick. The river card gives a Broadway on the board, no flushes possible. What's next:
>> both players will have to act on the river. Should they bet and pray for opponent's mistake ? Should they check - check to not make fools of themselves ? Or perhaps Chidwick should check and Ivey should bet ?
It may seem funny or odd, but no matter how you call it, from a spectator's perspective (which also makes poker popular) it's a great drama that turns into a boring ending. There's nothing worse that can happen to a spectator. It's also not good for the players to face this kind of choice during a hand.
Yeah, when flush beats flush it's a normal thing, but when you have four suited cards on the board this can easily turn into a trap. And I don't like when the game traps me.
This is how I feel when posting in this thread:
